The Use of Language Styles in Multimodal Texts on the Facebook Account “HT”

This study investigates the use of figurative language in HT’s Facebook posts, focusing on irony and metaphor as strategies for conveying social criticism and humanitarian values. Employing a qualitative descriptive approach, the data consist of five selected Facebook posts published between September and October 2023. The analysis is conducted using stylistic and digital discourse perspectives, supported by multimodal interpretation of textual and visual elements. The findings reveal that HT consistently employs verbal irony to challenge dominant social assumptions related to dignity, diversity, and moral values, while metaphors are used to conceptualize abstract life experiences such as struggle, social status, and survival. These figurative devices function not only as aesthetic elements but also as persuasive tools that enhance emotional engagement and audience interpretation. Furthermore, the high level of audience interaction indicates that figurative language plays a crucial role in making critical messages more accessible and acceptable in digital spaces. This study concludes that Facebook can serve as an effective platform for ethical discourse, where irony and metaphor operate as powerful communicative resources for social reflection and critique in contemporary digital culture.

Figurative language, irony, metaphor, digital discourse, Facebook, stylistics

1. Aminuddin. (1995). Stilistika: Pengantar memahami bahasa dalam karya sastra. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Andini, C., Youngsun, K., Sunnuraini, S., & Warouw, D. S. (2026). Developing a Chunk-Based Learning Model to Improve Korean Speaking Skills for Beginner Learners. International Journal of L2CT, 1(2), 156-172. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Budi. (2023). Satirical language styles on social media. Sinestesia, 13(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Charteris-Black, J. (2021). Metaphors of power: A critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dynel, M. (2021). Irony, deception, and humour in social media communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Gibbs, R. W. (2023). Metaphor and meaning: Contemporary perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Jung, S., Ko, Y., Kyeongjae, P., Sosrohadi, S., & Rahman, F. F. (2025). Bridging Cultural Gaps: Addressing Translation Issues in Korean Language Expression for Indonesian Learners. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, 10(3), 1-8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Kress, G. (2020). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication (2nd ed.). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Landy, S. (1972). Drama and irony. London: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Moleong, L. J. (2010). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif (Rev. ed.). Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Muhklisin, Maryaeni, & Pratiwi, Y. (2016). Forms of language style in Facebook communication within a male artists’ community. Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan, 1(6), 1106–1113. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Paramita, D. (2019). An analysis of the use of sarcastic language by netizens on Facebook. Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 4(2), 45–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Pradopo, R. D. (2005). Pengkajian puisi. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Pradopo, R. D. (2014). Teori sastra: Metode kritik dan penerapannya. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rahman, F., Abbas, A., Hasyim, M., Rahman, F., Abbas, A., & Hasyim, M. (2019). Facebook group as media of learning writing in ESP context: A case study at Hasanuddin University. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles, 26(6.1), 153-167. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Tarigan, H. G. (1985). Pengajaran gaya bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Tagg, C., & Seargeant, P. (2020). Taking offence on social media. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Yaumi, M. T. A. H., Rahman, F., & Sahib, H. (2023). Exploring WhatsApp as Teaching and Learning Activities during Covid-19/New Normal era: A Semiotic Technology Analysis. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 6(12), 7627-7634. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Youngsun, K., Sosrohadi, S., Andini, C., Adinda, R., Jae, P. K., Yookyung, K., & Jung, S. (2024). Beyond the Korean Wave: Understanding the Motivation of Among Indonesian Gen Z to Learn Korean in the K-Pop Trend. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 7(06). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Zappavigna, M. (2021). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London: Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Zappavigna, M., & Martin, J. R. (2022). Discourse and social life: A social semiotic perspective. London: Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]